Feminist Frequency needs a fact check?

[aestu]

Feminism as it is understood by the general public, is the idea that females wish to be treated the same as males. With that basic line of logic as a starting point..

Everything that follows is lies and nonsense because your initial premise is malarkey. Women do not want to be treated the same as males nor is the goal of feminism "equality".

As far as feminism is concerned, it is a wholly important issue, the idea that, in this day and age, we are not judged by our ability...

And you prove my point. Feminists do not argue about equality of opportunity, they argue about equality of results. They support and abuse laws that judge equality based on outcome irrespective of the availability, inclination or basic ability of women to do the jobs in question.

And "equality of results" only applies to the jobs that are fun, glamorous, and high-paying - never to those that are dreary, difficult or dangerous. Women sue for under-representation in management etc arguing that inequality of outcome proves inequality of opportunity but never do you see them do the same for farming, mining, maintenance, etc.

 

[Dastardly]

If I was a victim of rape or a violent crime, and a well intentioned person indicated that I could've prevented it if I'd done X Y or Z differently, I'd probably feel pissed off too.

Oh, as would I. It reeks of "I told you so." But the problem is that's not what's happening here. What we're doing is deconstructing past events and saying, "Based on what we've seen in the past, here's what we could tell people for the future." We're not saying you should walk up to a rape victim and tell them all of the Hindsight Highways they could have taken to avoid Rape Road.

But what follows are some fundamental misunderstandings about our justice system:

...and in the world we live in, the "she was askin' for it, check out that outfit" defense is commonplace.

While I might ask your sources for just how commonplace this defense is, what matters is whether or not this defense stands up in court. It doesn't. I can be put on trial for robbing a liquor store and tell them I was stealing it for biofuel for my orphan-saving spaceship if I wanted, but it's not going to work. People will try ridiculous "defenses."

It's also commonplace for a woman's sexual history or proclivities to be used as defense in a rape case. Say, if she's into BDSM, or she has multiple partners, well that right there is grounds for exoneration!

There's a reason things like that come up in some cases. A "rape trial" isn't an event where we "put a rapist on trial." It's an event to determine whether or not the defendant committed rape. At the point of trial, it's still if he's a rapist, not how big of a rapist is he.

Our system of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes the possibility that someone may be wrongly (or even falsely) accused. That doesn't change just because the charge is rape. A defendant is still presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the prosecution has to prove A) that the alleged victim and the defendant had sexual contact, and B) that contact was without the consent of the alleged victim.

Depending on the specific case, the alleged victim's sexual history with the defendant can have a lot of bearing on B. (Usually, witnesses or evidence establish A.) This is particularly the case with acquaintance rape, as "stranger rape" is usually easier to prosecute based on proof of sexual contact only.

Too often, the public takes Ingredient A, adds to it the accusation of rape, and presumes that to mean a conviction... so if and when a conviction doesn't follow, the assumption is that a rapist went free. And rather than looking into why this decision is reached, people just store it away as "yet another example" of injustice. (Why? Because no one wants to sound like the guy defending the dirty "rapist!" See how cyclical it can be?)

I can understand why, living in that world, and wondering whether these shoes with this dress is going to make you look too rapey for a night on the town, that advice might not have registered as friendly. And I don't think an aggrieved reaction necessarily makes them uppity bitches who don't want to take any personal responsibility for their own safety. It's an emotional subject. Particularly for those who have been victims.

And for me, I don't put as much weight on a woman's choice of attire. Now, I think a woman who dresses "slutty" is going to end up attracting what I feel would be "the wrong type of guy," that doesn't mean rape. It just means she'll attract guys that are primarily interested in whatever happens to be "on display."

When it comes to rape, it's behaviors that I focus on. Basically, avoid doing stuff that puts you in that position of vulnerability. The outfit will just get you a lot more attention, but playing smart and safe can ensure that you're able to filter through that attention and avoid the ones that mean you harm before they ever "find their chance."

(Again, this isn't to say it's a woman's job to "look out for rapists." But it's worth noting rapists certainly aren't going to "look out" for themsevles...)

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Our system of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes the possibility that someone may be wrongly (or even falsely) accused. That doesn't change just because the charge is rape. A defendant is still presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the prosecution has to prove A) that the alleged victim and the defendant had sexual contact, and B) that contact was without the consent of the alleged victim.

Firstly, to prove that someone committed rape you actually have to prove that they knew their victim did not consent at the time the offence occurred. The only difference in recent years is that many countries have inserted the extra caveat that this belief must be reasonable.

Secondly, the burden of proof you're describing is almost impossible to reach. There is no forensic test which can tell the difference between injuries sustained during violent consensual sex and rape.

So actually, there's a flip-side to what you're saying, which is that we cannot possibly assume that a verdict of not-guilty in a rape trial means that the victim has not been raped or that the accused was not responsible. Not-guilty does not mean innocent, it means that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That's another distinction which certain members of the public routinely seem to forget.

Frankly, a lot of men who take this position are defending rapists, not directly of course, but by seeking to minimize the crime and to suggest that it's somehow not as big an issue as all these nasty irrational women are claiming. The hysterical focus on a very, very small number of "malicious" allegations, and the consequent fear of them in the courts system and particularly among the police, is a good example. I'm not saying that these things don't happen, just that many people seem to have got the impression that they happen a lot.

For the first time in decades, allegations of a very serious crime which is unfortunately very common in our society are now relatively close to being taken seriously. I really have no sympathy for anyone who finds that threatening or scary.

 

[Dastardly]

Firstly, to prove that someone committed rape you actually have to prove that they knew their victim did not consent at the time the offence occurred. The only difference in recent years is that many countries have inserted the extra caveat that this belief must be reasonable.

Just because something is difficult to prove doesn't mean we should do away with requiring it. First degree murder requires that we prove premeditation, which is incredibly difficult to prove, but we still try.

Secondly, the burden of proof you're describing is almost impossible to reach. There is no forensic test which can tell the difference between injuries sustained during violent consensual sex and rape.

The forensic evidence is only to prove there has been sexual contact. That doesn't, in and of itself, prove rape. It can contribute to a rape case, particularly if the defendant has denied having sex with (or even knowing) the victim. But no one seriously believes such forensic evidence alone is proof of rape.

So actually, there's a flip-side to what you're saying, which is that we cannot possibly assume that a verdict of not-guilty in a rape trial means that the victim has not been raped or that the accused was not responsible. Not-guilty does not mean innocent, it means that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That's another distinction which certain members of the public routinely seem to forget.

Actually, it means we must assume exactly that. If someone is found "not guilty," and yet we can treat them all as though they're guilty, we're clearly not interested in justice at all. We might claim that it's "easy" to tell the ones who were actually innocent from the ones that got off on technicalities, but who is ever going to publicly defend the "dirty rapist?"

The fact is that, in such cases, we feel better assuming guilt. The legal system might appear more likely to release the guilty, but the public is far more likely to condemn the innocent. For one, it allows us to close the matter -- the offender was caught, so we're done. Additionally, it prevents us from having to express doubt in the victim's judgment (or honesty, if it seems there's lying afoot).

Frankly, a lot of men who take this position are defending rapists, not directly of course, but by seeking to minimize the crime and to suggest that it's somehow not as big an issue as all these nasty irrational women are claiming.

I'm not seeing that anywhere. Rape is awful, and rape should draw very harsh punishments. I don't hear anyone arguing that. I do, however, hear a lot of people reminding us that rape trials are about establishing whether or not there was a rape and whether or not it was perpetrated by the defendant.

The hysterical focus on a very, very small number of "malicious" allegations, and the consequent fear of them in the courts system and particularly among the police, is a good example. I'm not saying that these things don't happen, just that many people seem to have got the impression that they happen a lot.

All it takes for a guy is to see one case in which a woman maliciously accused, or even just mistakenly accuse a man and ruin his life very publicly -- that's enough to make a guy wary of such things, lest someone should ever try it on him. Why? Because the guy knows a) that he's not a rapist, and b) that he's unlikely to get raped, so those aren't on his list of concerns... which means he's more apt to focus on the only potential threat left on that list.

I don't worry about ovarian cancer half as much as I worry about prostate cancer, because the latter is more likely to actually happen to me.

For the first time in decades, allegations of a very serious crime which is unfortunately very common in our society are now relatively close to being taken seriously. I really have no sympathy for anyone who finds that threatening or scary.

But you're ascribing malicious intent to these guys. They're not threatened that people are taking rape seriously. Find me one person who honestly believes rape is no big deal. The idea that an accusation is as good to the public as a conviction -- that's the perceived problem, I think.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Actually, it means we must assume exactly that. If someone is found "not guilty," and yet we can treat them all as though they're guilty, we're clearly not interested in justice at all. We might claim that it's "easy" to tell the ones who were actually innocent from the ones that got off on technicalities, but who is ever going to publicly defend the "dirty rapist?"

Okay, let's take the other side of this for a second.

A woman is raped by someone she knows. She bravely comes forward to the police, presses charges and goes through the harrowing ordeal of taking this person to court and, in the end, there is insufficient evidence to convict. Under your reasoning, since the person in question has been found to be innocent, the legal system has no right to place further restrictions on his contact with his alleged victim.. after all he's innocent.

Except that he may well not be. He may, in fact, do exactly the same thing again confident now that is victim will not come forward this time because if she did then the police would simply assume she is lying. After all, she accused an innocent man right! What a monster!

You simply cannot assume that someone who has been acquitted of rape is innocent. They are not innocent, they are simply "not-guilty", meaning that there was not enough evidence to convict them. Noone is suggesting we imprison these people just in case, but it would be just as idiotic to simply be forced to assume that because insufficient evidence could be found then nothing happened.

Now, if someone were to write that a person acquitted of rape was definitely guilty and had gotten away with it, that would be defamation and illegal. However, to merely suggest or speculate that someone may be anything other than entirely innocent of all crimes when they have been acquitted is not defamation. It is in fact an entirely accurate assessment of the situation. The flipside of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is no obligation for everyone to accept that a person who has been acquitted must be innocent.

For a crime to even reach court, there must be an investigation which must turn up enough evidence for the police to charge someone with a crime. Crimes do not get to court if there is no evidence that they occurred.

Because the guy knows a) that he's not a rapist, and b) that he's unlikely to get raped, so those aren't on his list of concerns... which means he's more apt to focus on the only potential threat left on that list.

If someone comes forward with a rape allegation, then the only reasonable assumption, even if you believe you have slept with them consensually, is that they honestly believe they have been raped. Now, under the definition of rape your own belief may already render that legally untrue, but that does not mean we can just assume they are lying.

You can of course allege that they are lying or making it up, and such allegations are just as capable of ruining people's lives, particularly in the (extremely likely) event the defendant is acquitted of rape. Maybe you don't care or don't pick up on those cases because you don't have to see those lives as substitutable to your own, but I personally don't see that as an excuse.

See, in my opinion what this always seems to come back to is the presumed right of men to see sex as an entirely no-risk affair. I don't see that as a sustainable position. By penetrating someone's body you are taking responsibility for their consent, and since you willingly took on that responsibility they are perfectly within their rights to allege that you failed. If you are willing to take basic care, this need not be an obstacle.

The idea that an accusation is as good to the public as a conviction -- that's the perceived problem, I think.

I fail to see why this is particular or exceptional to this crime, except that the perpetrators (and alleged perpetrators) this crime happen to predominantly have penises, which seems to buy a peculiar brand of loyalty from other people with penises.

If I am responsible for managing someone's finances and they accuse me of embezzling their money, some members of the public may simply assume that I am guilty of fraud because I have been accused of it. This is not a deep social problem, though it may cause personal loss or disadvantage to me. It is a risk we all have to accept in virtually every area of life.

If someone wants to, they can fabricate a malicious allegation against you quite easily. It is already treated as a very serious crime. What more do you want?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

What you said is essentially a wordier version of "tits or GTFO." They're both boil down to "this woman has an opinion? I can't fap to opinions!"

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

What you said is essentially a wordier version of "tits or GTFO." They're both boil down to "this woman has an opinion? I can't fap to opinions!"

What? I didn't say anything about her opinions or "fapping." I said she is pretty but her personality grates on me and that's a shame. Heavens forbid I should comment on the appearance and personality of a woman.

Nice knee-jerk, there.

 

[Cobalt180]

While it is indeed true that many females will wish to see the results of their actions bring them higher-paying more luxurious jobs, should be actively ignore that pay is, in most cases, compensatory with the labor involved? That may be a whole other argument, but if feminism now is simply about equal representation in the workforce, in management positions especially, then could this not be seen as a movement akin to a pseudo-affirmative action movement?

Granted, we do not live in a world where hard work and effort pay off consistently based on how much you've put in. I will admit that many men and women alike put in a lot of effort to try to become a manager, or more, but should we deny that in some cases, those positions are not always available? If they wish to see results, then should they not try to work within a system that they say has cheated them, and try to create their own niche?

I would wonder of which feminists we talk about. Those who see females as objectified by the culture, their objective as a group is to resist the use of the female body as selling point, trying to resist an ideal form that they must adhere to. More broad feminism will shift more towards pay and positions, equality in the workforce. By supporting laws that give them equal return, they potentially do harm to themselves, although I didn't see any objection to that in your reply.

I'm actually curious, by "equal returns" what did you mean specifically?